SwitchingQuylthulg: Nice game, but I think it's a bit overrated. The knight-sac probably doesn't win by force; I believe an improvement on move 19 can be found for Black. It is, furthermore, the only way not to lose material for insufficient (it seems to me) compensation (OK, he could have played 18.a5 Bc5 19.Qd3 Bb4 and only then 20.Nxd5, but sooner or later the sac is necessary; I doubt this is an improved version for White, so he gets no credit for not playing that way - and if it turns out that <would> have been better, it just makes the game move all the worse), so Grischuk didn't really have to make any calculations - or even intuition - to justify it. It's sort of like this position:

SwitchingQuylthulg: <acirce> Well, of course you're right in that Grischuk had probably planned the knight sac all the way along. Still, the plan is nothing special and the important move Nxd5 is very easy to see. To me, it doesn't make sense to call this a great game - you might as well call Botvinnik vs Capablanca, 1938 a masterpiece.

Another point: blunders do happen. Surely you would imagine that Nf6+!! in my diagram above is the outcome of beautiful long-term calculation if it was played by Grischuk. But as it is, a similar game was played by a 2170-rated Belgian player called Van Leeuwen, and he resigned in a position not too unlike my diagram.

acirce: <Surely you would imagine that Nf6+!! in my diagram above is the outcome of beautiful long-term calculation if it was played by Grischuk.>

I don't like the tone of this. Obviously it would depend on the moves leading up to the position rather than who was the player.

And why are you so obsessed with the knight sac? As far as I am concerned it would have been a great game even if the plan had involved no sacrifice at all. Sacs impress the audience, but they don't imply higher quality of play.

SwitchingQuylthulg: <And why are you so obsessed with the knight sac? As far as I am concerned it would have been a great game even if the plan had involved no sacrifice at all. Sacs impress the audience, but they don't imply higher quality of play.> That's my point, actually - this is the sort of game that impresses the audience (as we have seen) but is not IMO (you can disagree for all you want) of particularly high (if not very low, either) quality of play.

<Easy to see - difficult to calculate. Would you be able to work out the implications over the board?> It's possible, but I gotta admit that 'no' is the likely answer. I'd still make the move, though. It's even possible that I could come up with the right follow-up after 19...Qc5, too. It wouldn't consider it a good attack if I made it that way, yet the moves would be just the same than those played by Grischuk. Is it, then, really the moves played that are of high quality? Can the same move be of different quality depending on who plays it?

<What do you call it? And what are your credentials for making such judgments? Perhaps you are a world champion in disguise?> I picked the game jokingly, of course. I know that most people in the chess world consider it a good game and I respect their opinion. Personally, I call it the 'Most overrated game of all-time' and Botvinnik's 30.Ba3 the 'Most overestimated move ever'. I'm not alone but I know I'm amongst a minority. I respect different opinions on the matter hey, don't take it too seriously!

A case could be made that I'm a world champion, yes. Not at chess though. I once beat a guy in an online blitz game who once beat another guy in a casual club game who once beat yet another guy who once beat Tomi Nybäck who once beat Evgeny Bareev who has beaten Kramnik several times - that's the closest I come to being chess world champion, does that count? :)

kevin86: An unusual final position! Black has two rooks-one on the eighth rank and STILL cannot stop white's passed pawn. Of course,if Rxf7,the self-pinned rook cannot stop the pawn after b7. If the rook moves along the 8th rank-white's rook opposes it with a discovered check and wins it.

sheaf: <1.Nf6+!! is a brilliant move that no normal player would ever think of in such a position and anyone who could find it on the board would be immortalised
> ????? <normal player>? a 1300 computer would play that in such a position because its the only move which doesnt lose immidiately

Wow! Although I never really understood why it was rated quite so highly,
Botvinnik vs Capablanca, 1938 was, I believe, selected as the single most outstanding game of the Twentieth Century in a survey of Grandmasters, so I suppose one might be inclined to call it a masterpiece.

For those seeking a better appreciation of Botvinnik vs Capablanca, 1938, it is analyzed by Dzindzichashvili in one of his Roman Forum videos (“Greatest Games of Chess” or something like that) with an explanation of why, in the context of when it was played, this game is so significant.

Domdaniel: Botvinnik-Capablanca is a 'masterpiece' for a lot of reasons: but the overriding one is that it doesn't hinge on a single attacking movement, however brilliant. Yes, the final sacrificial attack is superb, but so is the positional play leading up to it -- and Capablanca's decision to go for queenside counterplay would be justified in most games. It took enormous vision plus calculation to see that it wouldn't work here. Another masterpiece quality -- which I agree is also present in today's game -- is the number of alternative tactical sequences which lead to just-barely-winning endgame positions.

The idea that a winning move is not merely strong, but is necessary to keep the initiative, is a very common one. Tal and Kasparov demonstrated it repeatedly -- as does every strong player. If you have a choice of good ways to proceed, or if you can afford to dither a bit before attacking (or can make a weak attack instead of a strong maneuver, and get away with it) then it's just not much of a game, is it?

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.